RT info:eu-repo/semantics/article
T1 Assessing the performance of analytical methods for propolis – A collaborative trial by the international honey commission
A1 Vilas-Boas, M.
A1 Lopes, M.
A1 Nunes, L. F.
A1 Pereyra, A.
A1 Kunert, C.
A1 Beckh, G.
A1 Çelemli, O. G.
A1 Sorkun, K.
A1 Georgé, S.
A1 Paulo, L.
A1 Gardini, Silvia
A1 Sancho Ortiz, María Teresa
A1 Osés Gómez, Sandra María
A1 Fernández Muiño, Miguel Ángel
A1 Bankova, V.
A1 Popova, M.
A1 Trusheva, B.
A1 Petrov, N.
A1 Dastan, T.
A1 Tananaki, C.
A1 Falcão, S. I.
K1 Propolis
K1 Collaborative study
K1 Methods harmonization
K1 Standard methods
K1 International Honey Commission
K1 Alimentos
K1 Food
K1 Química
K1 Chemistry
AB Propolis is a resinous beehive product with extraordinary bioactivity and chemical richness, linked with the botanical sources of the resin. The potential of this product keeps captivating the scientific community, conducting to continuous and growing research on plant sources, composition, or applications in agriculture, cosmetics, pharmacy, odontology, etc. In all cases, the quality assessment is a requirement and relies on methods to extract the bioactive substances from the raw propolis and quantify different components. Unfortunately, besides the absence of international quality requirements, there is also a lack of standardized analytical procedures, despite the presence of several methodologies with unknown reliability, often not comparable. To overcome the current status, the International Honey Commission established an inter-laboratory study, with propolis samples from around the globe, to harmonize analytical methods and evaluate their accuracy. A common set of protocols was matched between twelve laboratories from nine countries, for quantification of ash, wax, and balsamic content in raw propolis, and spectrophotometric evaluation of total phenolics, flavone/flavonol, and flavanone/dihydroflavonol in the extract. A total of 3428 results (97% valid data), were used to assess the methods’ accuracy following ISO-5725 guidelines. The within-laboratory precision, revealed good agreement levels for the majority of the methods, with relative variance below 5%. As expected, the between-laboratory variance increased, but, with exception of the flavanone method that revealed a clear lack of consistency, all the others maintained acceptable variability levels, below 30%. Because the performance of ultrasounds procedures was low, they cannot be recommended until further improvements are made.
PB Taylor & Francis
SN 0021-8839
YR 2023
FD 2023
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10259/8182
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10259/8182
LA eng
NO The authors are grateful to the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) for financial support by national funds FCT/MCTES to CIMO (UIDB/00690/2020). Thanks to the Programa Apícola Nacional 2020-2022 (National Beekeeping Program) for funding the project "Standardization of production procedures and quality parameters of bee products" and to Project PDR2020-1.0.1-FEADER-031734: “DivInA-Diversification and Innovation on Beekeeping Production”. National funding by FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, through the institutional scientific employment program-contract with Soraia I. Falcão. A special thanks is given to Hartmut Scheiter and Allwex Food Trading GmbH, Bremen, Germany, for providing, handling and delivering the propolis blind samples.
DS Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Burgos
RD 12-may-2024